NVIDIA GeForceFX 5700 Ultra Review

Examination of the Specifications

This content was originally featured on Amdmb.com and has been converted to PC Perspective's website. Some color changes and flaws may appear.

Specs and Issues with Installation

FX5700
Ultra

FX5600
Ultra

FX5600

Memory
(MB)

128

128

128

Memory
Interface (bits)

128

128

128

Memory
Type

DDR-II

DDR-I

DDR-I

Memory
Bandwidth (GB/s)

14.4

12.8

11.2

Manufacturing
Process (microns)

0.13

0.13

0.13

Core
Clock (MHz)

475

400

270

Memory
Clock (MHz)

450

400

275

Street
Price (USD)

under
$200

~$160

~$130

Category
Range

Mid

Mid

Mid

In addition to the above,
the FX5700 Ultra has an updated shader engine (the CineFX 2.0) that should
improve features like pixel and vertex shading which are being used with
increased frequency in today's games. The net improvement with the FX5700
Ultra over the FX5600 is a core and memory clock boost, updated shaders,
DDR-II support, and a core manufactured by IBM (not that it really matters
to most of you). As you can see, this is not a major revision of the old
product, but merely a refresh. For those of us looking for a drastic change
in architecture, we will have to wait for a while longer (in August 2003,
NVIDIA CEO implied that they will not release any major new products anytime
soon).

Bigger is Not Better: Issues
with Installation

The FX5700
Ultra is a large card; it measures 8.5" x 4.25" compared to the
7.5" x 4.25" on the FX5600 Ultra. This extra length may cause a
few of you some headaches as it did me.

The front of the FX5700 Ultra.

I am using a fairly roomy
case (Antec SX830 mid-tower) on a fairly well laid-out motherboard (ABIT
NF7 Rev2.0), and I never thought I'd see the day when I'd run into problems
with space. The problem is with the length of the FX5700 Ultra: it obstructs
more RAM clips than it should and causes problems for those of us using standard
length IDE cables.

Here's a picture so you
can see what I'm talking about.

A tight fit caused by a large video card.

(Click for larger image.)

As you can see, the RAM
clips come within a hair of touching the video card itself. It also
blocks off 2 RAM clips instead of just one like with most other cards. However,
the most annoying aspect of the length of the card was that it forces me
to bend my IDE cables around the card to reach the IDE headers and I barely
had enough slack to do this. Things were so tight that I considered removing
my DVD-ROM drive just to give my cables more room. If you have IDE headers
below the AGP slot, you may be forced to bend cables, move drives, or even
buy longer cables just to make everything fit.

Though I did not have a
problem with the length of my case, some of you using smaller cases may find
the card too long and may conflict with a hard-drive cage or the chassis.
Before you buy this card, make sure that there is enough room for an 8.5" card
from back to front over the AGP slot.

Even though none of you
can actually buy a reference board, the reference card is followed
closely by many OEM manufacturers and it serves as an example of what should
be produced. By giving little thought to the ergonomics of their reference
design, NVIDIA risks having their partners repeat the same design mistakes.
It may be impossible to do given the manufacturing process, but I think NVIDIA
really needs to spend some time and give some more thought to their design.
It will help the user greatly if they could just shrink the board by 1 inch.
I fear for those of you who are using micro ATX cases.

Editor's Update: Though I saw these same issue arise as well, the NVIDIA 5700 Ultra graphics card does fit to AGP specifications and thus some of the issues may stem from motherboard design. This is still a concern though and we hope that NVIDIA's vendors may choose to redesign the PCB on their boards.